Bill Davidsen wrote:>> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> writes:>>> and we already have kgdb so you have to also explain why you>>> can't improve kgdb in the areas it trails mdb.>>>>>> But the ideal outcome would be if you could contribute patches to>>> kgdb to the point where it is as good as mdb. It is already in the>>> That idea sounds familiar, the "suspend2" response, when something new > and significantly different is offered, instead of putting it in and > letting people choose in configuration, take the position that what is > there is good enough, and if the author of the new solution will just > drop all their ideas and slap some band-aids on the existing code it > will be "gooder enough" without actually offering people a choice of > something different.

To be fair, choice in "leaf" features like a debugger is not entirely comparable to choice in central features. If the infrastructure does not support all use cases reasonably well, its better to fix the infrastructure or replace it by a working one, rather than adding a second infrastructure which is also not general enough.

In this case: Make a side-by-side comparison of features and shortcomings of the available debuggers (as in Andi's response), then decide how the best of both worlds can be achieved + used + maintained most easily --- by having both side-by-side, or by taking over some or all of one's features into the other. Either way requires contributors to be interested.-- Stefan Richter-=====-==--- =--- --==-http://arcgraph.de/sr/